So I know TANKS is meant to be "abstract", but after some thought I kind of realised the unlimited range and turret turning being none existant was actually ignoring two major parts of tank warfare.

Now I realise that its fair too argue thats part of initiative value possibly, but I still feel thats not the case.

Am I the only one to ponder this, or is it a real mishap with the current ruleset. I know from documentaries, a Tiger had more range than a Sherman, but the Sherman could 'Be on target' quicker due to shorter barrel and faster rotating turret.

I also think there needs to be a rear shot bonus as well as a flank shot, after all a tanks rear armour is always the weakest.

I hate to reply like this as Im usually not easily offended but sorry man, I want to agree but I feel kinda put out by that.

Firstly, I fedl I havent created as many posts as you say and some of what I have has been a word to GF9 about the state of spam on here.

Secondly, just a few days ago people were complaining about how dead it was around here. Now I take a critisism for activley trying to get people talking again. It kinda sucks.

Thirdly, I apologise if some topics are a re hash, it wasnt intentional or meant to bury anyones posts. In all fairness time and people just not responding does that without my help.

Lastly, with all respect, I havent done anything wrong, nor are you a forum administrator.

The truth is I am really trying to keep going with a game that we've all agreed is coming down to us fans keeping alive, this is not a rebuke or me saying anything ill toward you, but I wouldve appreciated a private message regarding this as its made me feel like whats the point.

Sorry mate but I feel I got to be honest.

Before this thread turns into something it shouldn't be, Waster, I just wanna say bro that I'm not angry or harbour any ill will. If I'm being honest, I read your message at a bad time last night and I probably took it the wrong way.

You seem like a decent guy so Im gonna say for my part it's water under the bridge and I hope we can continue corresponding without any issue.

Regards

That was my concern (a larger map), but with how you describe it, sounds fine.

To be fair, since my original post, I ve become more accepting of the simplified vision. I just got used to ranges in STAW and how that tactically affected the game.

It's ranges are a 12 inch stick I think. Split into 3 parts. Close, medium and long range. Different weapons have different ranges and effects.

STAW is also played on a 3x3 board traditionally, so that's why I'd assumed that tanks would have been the same.

To be fair as well. A big part of attack wing is firing arcs (representative of where the phasers and torpedo launchers are). With most of tanks having a 360 fire, I guess ranges are not necessary in tanks. Plus a board scaled up is way less than half a mile in real life. Tanks could easily shoot further than this anyway so it's actually accurate in a weird way.

I use the following house rule:

During the shooting phase of a tank, the tank can turn his turret up to 90º to the left/right.
Turreted tanks need to point to the enemy with the gun to be able to shoot.

It really enhances the gameplay and makes you think about your movements and flanking maneuvers. The movement arrow can easily help you to check the 90º.

Also it doesn't make the pace any slower. Everyone that plays with me prefers to play this way because it makes the game more interesting and tense.

Also, come on, it's a tank game, it needs some kind of simple and fun turret gameplay mechanic.

just 90º "degrees" to left or right not both, and your barrel has to be pointing directly at the enemy tank.

If the turret gets stuck then the gun gets stuck in that position (quite fun when you try to aim and move with that handicap)

I see the game as so abstract that almost any authentic symbolism can be interpreted or incorporated into it without changing any rules. Any more as detailed range, speed, damage, turret traversal or tank turning rules might be superfluous and be contra productive. Keep in mind its rated at 8 + years on the net so as consensus; its not a 4 hour game tank simulator.

If one get over zealous on the subject for a debate using reality as a measurement one can see that a game turn is most likely several minutes based on handling tank movement rules and damage cards i.e. one can turn the tank or turret around for as many time that one like to.

An in game “shot” rolling the dice is actually several rounds being fired. In WWII one kept firing at a target until the target could be visually identified as being destroyed, usually 3-4 rounds at a rapid succession as you don’t dare to take a break to experience the targets response unless its burning or its crew is crawling everywhere. Any damage is the symbolic result of everything from shrapnel, deflections, spalling to full hull penetrations and catastrophic ammo explosions.

But my gun is better then yours, but at a 100m (game area @ 1:100) even high explosive rounds from long-barreled weapons could punch holes in some 40mm thick plates of welded armor at 0º by pure energy (good bye most German tanks shot in the side). Just the energy chock of a non-penetration is forceful enough to crack fuel tanks, rupture oil and gas lines, burst shell casings and even damage engine blocks.

But my armor is better then yours… generally yes its a plus, but also one has to take account of the multitude of ways to take out a bigger tank then yours @ the range of a 100m were the average shot dispersion is less then the size of a dinner plate and gunners don’t shoot at areas where they know the armor is too thick.

What's also new to many PC game players is that one is technically blind in a tank. All close combat between tanks in broken terrain or close to settlements is at crawling speeds as victory lies with the first observation and aimed first round.
Simon says: -In the next paintball game, try paint the eye protection black and leave out a spot size of a BB for one eye. Then run across the field with the gun close to the face and head looking up and down, up and down as quickly as you can and then you know the major issues of WWII tank warfare.

So question remains on what one want the game to resemble?

For me as long as the rules don’t state something that really stings in the eye, I mean radically opposes the general conduct of tank combat, its fine. Oh, yes there are things that I feel is highly dubious but then again 8+...

/Slim